HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010 06 14 Regular 601 Revised Sonesta Pointe Subdivision Concept Plan COMMISSION AGENDA
Consent
ITEM 601 Information
Public Hearin .
Re' k , r X
June 14, 2010 MGR. ` /De s t. kit/ Meting �`
1
REQUEST: The Community Development Department requests the City Commission review
tY P
P q tY
and provide comments for the revised Sonesta Pointe subdivision concept plan.
SYNOPSIS: Meritage Homes recently purchased the 40 -acre Sonesta Pointe property located on
North Tuskawilla Road, just south of and adjacent to the St. John's Landing
subdivision in the Winter Springs Town Center. Meritage has revised the conceptual
site plan for the project to include 253 units comprised of 60 estate lots, 133
bungalows, and 60 townhouse units.
CONSIDERATIONS:
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS:
• Chapter 166, F.S.
• Comprehensive Plan
• Chapter 9, City Code
• Chapter 20, Sections 320 — 327, City Code
CHRONOLOGY:
• July 2, 2004 — Preliminary Engineering /Subdivision Plan received
• August 9, 2004 — Concept Plan approved by City Commission
• September 27, 2004 — Revised Concept Plan approved by City Commission
• August 28, 2006 — Aesthetic Review approved by City Commission
• September 25, 2006 — Early Work Permit sent back to staff for further review
• November 13, 2006 — Early Work Permit approved by the City Commission
• December 11, 2006 - Final engineering /subdivision plan and DA approved
• May 14, 2007 — Concept Plan Revision #3 approved by the City Commission
• April 28, 2008 — Site Development Permit Agreement approved by the City
Commission
• May 18, 2010 — Staff Review of latest Concept Plan Revision
• May 24, 2010 — Commission renewed the Early Work Permit for the Property
2010 06 14_COMM_Reg 601_Sonesta Pointe Concept Revision
June 14, 2010
Regular Agenda Item 601
PROJECT ANALYSIS:
• The project consists of 253 units. There are 133 bungalows on 32' X 75' lots with rear loaded
garages. Alleys provide access to the garages while the fronts of the units are situated along the
street fronts. These units are single- family detached units with 2 -car garages. There are 60
townhouse units with rear- loaded garages situated along the central drives of the project. The
townhouses are contained in 6 -units and 4 -unit buildings. Along the eastern and southern
portions of the project there are 60 estate lots that average 50' wide and 110' deep. These units
have front- loaded garages that are situated 25' back from the right -of -way and 15' behind the
main front facade of the house. A porch extends between the facade of the house and the street
right -of -way.
• The proposed concept plan includes 1,246 parking spaces which are comprised of garages and
on- street parking internally as well as parking along Tuskawilla Road and Michael Blake
Boulevard/Spine Road (MBBSR). The overall gross parking ratio is 4.92 spaces per unit. If
one space per garage is deducted from the calculation, pursuant to City policy, the parking ratio
drops to 3.92 spaces per unit.
• Access to and from the development is provided along Tuskawilla Road through three entrance
roadways. Access will also be available from MBBSR when it is constructed from S.R. 434 to
the trail crossing as a part of the Town Center Phase II project. MBBSR is being constructed
with Phase I of Sonesta Pointe from Tuskawilla Road to the trail crossing.
• The proposed net parking ratio of 3.92 spaces /unit represents an increase of almost 1
space /unit over the previous concept plan and is sufficient to serve the overall development.
However, along Road A and the southern portion of Road B, which serve the single family
estate lots, have limited to no on- street parking because of the close spacing of driveways to
the front - loaded garages. The on- street spaces that are on Road A are on the opposite side of
the street from the units. The addition of parking in the driveways can help provide additional
parking for the single family units provided the garages are far enough back from the right -of-
way so that the cars parked in the driveways do not extend beyond the facade of the house and
become the dominant feature of the streetscape. The current proposal is to set the garages 25'
back from the right -of -way but only 15' behind the main facade of the house. Staff will work
with the applicant during preparation of the final engineering to provide adequate distance for
the driveway parking areas
• The total traffic demand from the proposed concept plan will be slightly lower than the original
plan but slightly higher than the 2007 approved plan. The original approved plan had 408
townhome units, which generate 2,391 average daily trips per the ITE Trip Generation, 7th
Edition. The 2007 approved concept plan, consisting of 289 residential units with a mixture of
residential categories, was estimated to generate 2,117 average daily trips. The proposed plan
is estimated to generate 2200 average daily trips. A revised traffic report will need to be
submitted as part of the project's final engineering package. The following chart represents an
estimate of average daily trips generated by the proposed plan.
2010 06 14_COMM_Reg 601_Sonesta Pointe Concept Revision
June 14, 2010
Regular Agenda Item 601
Trip Generation Comparison of Previous Plans to Proposed Plan
Ori , inal Plan: Trio Generation Rate Avera . e Dail Trios
408 townhomes 5.86 trips /unit 2,391
2007 Approved Plan:
103 townhomes 5.86 trips /unit 604
72 duplex units 5.86 trips /unit 422
114 single family 9.57 trips /unit 1,091
Total 2,117
Proposed Plan:
60 townhomes 5.86 trips /unit 352
133 bungalows 9.57 trips /unit 1273
60 single family (estate) 9.57 trips /unit 575
Total 2200
• Stormwater from the subdivision is collected and routed to four on -site wet detention ponds.
The onsite wet detention ponds will have extensive littoral plantings, which improve water
quality through nutrient uptake and habitat creation.
• A key issue appears to be the proposed location of many of the corner units away from the
corner and street frontages. The applicant has stated that the addition of accessory units in
these areas will be considered during the final engineering phase of the project. Addition of
these units will not only address the building frontages on the corners but will also move this
project closer to the goal density of 7 units per acre.
• Bungalows have been fronted on Tuskawilla Road in place of the previously proposed
townhouses. This will create a streetscape along Tuskawilla Road that will contribute to a
greater diversity on the Town Center.
• While the pedestrian walkways in the center of the project between the townhouse units and
certain bungalows are aligned and could provide limited vistas to a terminal feature at the
lakes, other walkway locations will need to be considered for modification during the final
engineering to produce the vistas mentioned above. Certain walkways can be widened as part
of the final design. Since most of these walkways terminate on water bodies, terminating
features can be incorporated on the waterfront to add interest to the walkways and provide a
focal point. These focal points do not have to be elaborate, but merely elements of interest that
delineate the walkway terminus at the lake.
2010 06 14_COMM_Reg 601_Sonesta Pointe Concept Revision
June 14, 2010
Regular Agenda Item 601
• Once more accurate drainage calculations and pond sizing are complete, staff will work with
the applicant to enhance the park areas, specifically the park located on the eastern portion of
the site near the Cross Seminole Trail.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN /CODE CONSIDERATIONS
Staff has identified some concerns with certain policies of the comprehensive plan as related to
the proposed concept plan. These include the following:
1. Pedestrian-scale and pedestrian- oriented development. The proposed concept plan is less
pedestrian oriented than the 2006 final engineering /subdivision plan which the
Commission approved. The standard for a walkable distance is one quarter mile. The
approved 2006 plan contained an interconnected network of blocks that were
approximately one quarter mile in circumference. A city block is the smallest area that is
surrounded by streets or roadways. They are the space for buildings within the street
pattern of a city and form the basic unit of the city's urban fabric. Streets, blocks, and the
underground infrastructure are very permanent in nature and, once in place, are very
difficult to change (or if done poorly, to correct). In TND, the compact city blocks are built
up to their perimeter, forming "streetwalls," which help to define the public space and
create walkable communities. While many of the blocks on the proposed concept plan
meet the designation of "pedestrian scale ", several are larger than the prescribed 0.25 mile.
Three blocks are 0.6 mile, 0.45 mile, and 0.4 mile in circumference; larger thatn the quarter
mile that most people are willing to walk.
2. The current concept plan includes 60 front - loaded driveways as part of the estate lots. The
50 -foor wide lots do not meet the provisions of Section 20 -324 (2) because the lots need to
be 55 feet wide to provide front loaded garages in place of the alleys. Ideally, these lots
would be rear- loaded, however, the topography of the site sloping down toward the trail
behind these lots make the addition of a roadway along the rear of the estate lots extremely
expensive. Pursuant to Section 20 -324 (10) (d), the front - loaded garages are proposed
behind the principle plane of the building frontage. The current proposal is 15 feet behind
this plane. The code requires 20 feet. The applicant is seeking a variance to this
requirement.
FINDINGS:
1. The proposed concept plan includes 253 units comprised of townhouses, bungalows, and
single family units.
2. The subdivision will connect to City potable water and sanitary sewer. The City has adequate
capacity for both.
3. A revised traffic study will be submitted and reviewed by staff as part of the final engineering
phase of the development review. The proposed plan generates slightly more average daily
trips that the previously approved plan.
2010 06 14_COMM_Reg 601_Sonesta Pointe Concept Revision
June 14, 2010
Regular Agenda Item 601
4. The 3.92 spaces per unit provide an adequate parking ratio for this project.
5. The proposed stormwater management system has been conceptually reviewed by City Staff
and this system will be finalized as part of the final engineering review.
6. The applicant is requesting a waiver from Section 20 -324 (2) of the Code relative to allow
50'wide lots to have front loaded garages with the garage being set back 25' from the right -of-
way and 15' behind the front plane of the unit. Staff will continue to work with the applicant
to resolve this item to the greatest extent possible.
7. The applicant is requesting a waiver on the "front- back" issue (Section 20 -325 of the Code)
for those bungalow lots that back up to the two main lakes. They are proposing a landscape
screen at the rear of the units and the attendant alleyway to mitigate this condition.
8. The applicant is requesting a waiver for several of the blocks to be larger than the size
traditionally thought of as a pedestrian sized block. While Future Land Use Policies 2.2.1 and
5.2.5 refer to these pedestrian sized blocks, the Comprehensive Plan does not specify an exact
size. Staff will continue to work with the applicant to resolve this item to the greatest extent
possible.
9. The applicant has indicated a willingness to work with staff as part of the final engineering
review process to add accessory units to resolve the street frontage issue on certain street
intersections and to raise the density toward the target of 7 units /acre.
10. If the Commission approves the proposed concept plan, the applicant must resubmit
engineering /subdivision plans, an aesthetic review package, and amend the development
agreement.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The potential tax revenue of the proposed project is as follows:
Townhouse (60 units)
Units (1500 square feet) assessed at $90 /square foot: $8,100,000 assessed tax value
$8,100,100/1000 = 8,100
8,100 (2.5814) = $20,909.34
$20,909.34 (less the 4% statutory discount) = $20,072.97 tax revenue
Bungalow (133 units)
Units (1800 square feet) assessed at $100 /square foot: $23,940,000 assessed tax value
$21,280,000/1000 = 21,280
23,940 (2.5814) = $61,798.72
$61,798.72 (less the 4% statutory discount) = $59,326.77 tax revenue
Estate /Single family (60 units)
Units (2200 square feet) assessed at $100 /square foot: $13,200,000 assessed tax value
$13,200,000/1000 = 13,200
2010 06 14_COMM_Reg 601_Sonesta Pointe Concept Revision
June 14, 2010
Regular Agenda Item 601
13,200 (2.5814) = $34,074.48
$34,074.48 (less the 4% statutory discount) _ $32,711.50 tax value
Total Potential Tax Revenue $112,111.24
COMMUNICATION EFFORTS:
No communication efforts beyond the advertising of the Commission agenda are necessary in
conjunction with this agenda item.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Commission consider the findings and the comprehensive
plan/code considerations detailed above and approve the revised Sonesta Pointe Concept
Plan, subject to resolving the issues staff has identified in the "Considerations" section and
the waivers requested by the applicant. (e.g. block size, front loaded garages, "front- back"
issue)
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Dover Kohl Critiques of the 2006, 2008, and Current Plan Proposals
B. Response Letter from Wadley Hanson to Staff Comments on the current Plan Proposal
C. Applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies
D. Proposed Sonesta Pointe Revised Concept Plan
2010 06 14_COMM_Reg 601_Sonesta Pointe Concept Revision
ATTACHMENT A
DOVER, KOHL & PARTNERS
to w n p l a n n i n g
Memorandum
To: Randy Stevenson, John Baker
City of Winter Springs
Cc: Victor Dover
From: James Dougherty
Date: June 7, 2010
Subject: Critique of May 24, 2010 Sonesta Pointe plan
The urban design of the latest Sonesta Pointe Plan, revised May 24, 2010 appears to
be a substantial step backward from previous iterations of the plan, particularly from
the July 2006 version of the plan, in several regards. Please refer to the annotated
version of the plan at the end of this memo, and to our previous memos (memos
dated July 13, 2006 and February 1, 2008 are attached) regarding previous iterations
of the plans for this property for additional discussion of these issues:
1. Connectivity: This latest iteration of the plan has only two connection points
to the south, compared to three connection points to the south in the earlier
version.
2. Fronts and Backs: With very few exceptions, all buildings have a front side
and a back side. Fronts of buildings should face public spaces. While less
ideal, sides of buildings may face public spaces. Backs of buildings should
not face public spaces as this will:
a. Reduce safety by compromising proper natural surveillance,
b. Lead to a degraded level of character for these public spaces.
c. Reduce privacy for properties backing up to public spaces.
In numerous locations in the current plan, backs of parcels face public spaces.
This can be seen in the parcels surrounding the lakes as well as the parcels
adjacent to the trail on the east side of the site. The parcels surrounding the
lakes appear to suffer from fronts -backs orientation problems at great
expense, as the plan shows a substantial quantity of single- loaded alley along
the lake perimeters. The parcels around the lakes in the earlier July 2006
iteration of the plan were configured much more efficiently, achieving
double - loaded alleys as well as providing fronts of lots facing the signature
public spaces formed by the lakes.
3. Block size: Walkable block perimeters should be approximately a 5- minute
walk ('/ mile) in length. This can vary somewhat to deal with site design
Critique of Sonesta Pointe plan
June 7, 2010
Page 2 of 4
constraints such as topography, accommodation of stormwater ponds, and
parking garages. Blocks which substantially exceed '/4 mile in perimeter
should be avoided whenever possible as small block size is one of the most
critical factors in producing walkable urban fabric. Pedestrian passages can
be used occasionally to subdivide blocks to increase walkability. Pedestrian
passages should not be substituted for more than approximately 20% of
vehicular streets or vehicular connectivity and circulation will be overly
compromised.
In several locations in the current plan, block size appears to substantially and
unnecessarily exceed 1/4 mile in perimeter. This is particularly evident in the
blocks containing the ponds as well as the blocks adjacent to the trail.
Please refer to the page below from The Smart Growth Manual (McGraw
Hill, 2010) by Andres Duany et al regarding discussion of Block Size:
7 A Block Size
Keep blocks small, especially downtown.
, � ,_ ..y ' � ' , nays Beach, FL'
0 Ftwn north is south,
r ' according to the logic
, } - — 1 i o the transect. m osisc
a lt rural blocks give way is
,,,, .„. le g ti ,mask. urban blocks ift,,,,,,06
..,,, ,.,
- -tfliviagy-T,f , fs*
...., i p „ - lif e 4... NO:,
ii- - ff7 -4407 . '
it l ^� r
A permeating street network is the result of small blocks. Jane Jacobs
observed that the most walkable parts of towns and cities are found
where blocks are the smallest. Downtown Portland's blocks are only 200
feet square, and Savannah's original wards have 530 intersections per
square mile. Blocks in new neighborhoods should typically range from
1000 to 2000 feet in perimeter. Generally, blocks become smaller from
the rural edge to the urban center. A justified exception to this rule is an
urban center block containing a hidden parking lot within. Such blocks
should be planned to be subdivided if parking eventually is structured or
reduced. In lower-density areas, blocks may be made somewhat longer
if they are cut through by pedestrian passages. Pedestrian passages
are also useful for continuing street trajectories where slopes make
street connections impossible.
Leta with front. hack pr nhicfra Additional pedestrian connect cr1 to trail nreaed ! 0
CD
Q
CO
l Iht,', ,, A 10 , ._ ,.. ,.......r.J.- ---,, 4 li tk.
LOCATION MAP - l ,..4.
7
1 \,,,.. 4\,,, ,,N, J �
N _ _
....
csAPillC sca CD
/ .....?:AV ' ' ,.‘lA lig: 41.,,..: ,41,-,. 41 " r : .,' r ' -- r........
s /4. ,/, ' ‘. 0.... " ' \ 44, ., „.,.,,•,,, \ , ,,,, .,...:,,,l,„,i,:vii.L.::,,,,,,,,,...: ..._ ,........06.w., ,,,14... _ r , : .:0 ' ..„"l k. e.. 4.4 3F,T, iiihi.. 444/ „ ' ' i'''' (-) S \'' - . Aiiiii . r ' Ads " ;:anal
, .I b.
4 434.5^ ., , ®. .. .. ._ ... ..... vr ib 6._ ■; 411. : f, fl' '' 1 y ,y.„.40,—. 8 uonnc Lion : • -
�` ! x + 4444. - ,. ■� r�
necard Mer
Ai..4 /-,;-,,,:,.'' ' `� / w we nun. TYP.
4 ,, 41,4,7 ,,, ,,,,,,‘,.,4,,,, ./ ,./.4,,,,,;,1 , ,, : ,, , , ,,, ; z: i 5„;: , :::::,,, ,,, %,- --.0.1.
r � -/ Realde ua1DY Parking GiadaNan
4. 41704 s
'i,:1.1.:,,,:-:‘;'. ' \ � � / awns« k eek,a w Na .
an
• yJ (y y ! / — Lot 61/1* Ot IMO
wi Tyye " �"' Tor 6 nelak et
, ! jII , � E.a
32 a so•x IRE 6I 5 i+s ..ran sI + . 304 stierekn�y Note
irk CD
^
�/ 0 ung 1 Sanwa.. 060
N O + ( Q N'''‘' �• _ - s un
'rownkeu.e xr x rs• eo rown6an 60 + a o � ne1BJ M
O
6 ne�y +B CA
CD
� � � s - +unne .ix o1rSPM - _ xix 8 Meal
P.rkl6B
As adjacent parcel backs to the Lrail, TeYlt 2.54 Lot. Paeki6a 21
P meal
7 up t '. rwk.wm. ■a
En
not fronting the trail with the.5e IaPS'<a ac' C.Pt1 . C.
_ Totol: 1.106 Opoeea O � r--1 j
tt %orsiclrr placing sic e, s of Eotr� adjacent t<; tt:r, ail Tow exemdly 7Yek6M116 6 a.: l,xsr Spate. " '� b = b
the pedcgt an acce_ s p 6w•+ ��•� x.. P...n w
R oint:� t.� tr the tra.', Op..* P.eyla.a: , p...6n
PAWED ( �] O
7
1.11411871 e1 Bloke 6Na. la " N
tv
and inc ta3ing
110
Pointe Site Plan
'00 400 til
iiiiiii
- • 800
SW �' /ukK/'n41 WM. l4lSRM p 9wL FDYICMit � •
NAIL ., '' Access M T--4
D t x•c snc raurtmt / ,i - �^°.` al tC
r
A t / eP -. 4;' 10mf��l�41i1�i1Ud1Ol ai
Na
or a 11010r4411001 , - -, r t".y/� _wc.� '�`.__ /,A : -A `� A — - - � ' �' ` r,�' O
.cow.. .w. �� r •Sra± ..- ..{ ( v i , i14 , , ,,--- - " t ®� Q,
♦ , a is � - ♦i
xr a s• eua, ��',,� ;7070
; �'� f` ,0 �`r �oprl� p
/147611/ i �, 1‘,,, ` ,� ,r,i► i , i ; %! ,
e.r,c,'w.r r,`'� / � ��;� � � ; T � . � p \ t . _ .t .�, � ‘,0..\ , ,1 r rl� `AP 4 . i r! ® � �� � 'L�
��*/ , y ' \ P � , ` i \�`�� t i® J %-_-_ 1 II I 8----"'---- *- - ■ t om,. , , "1
aa. m.0 �la��'f ��1 ' s � \� ��� ! i � � �I 1111",0/7/ � % �-s
� o � a . `► �� mri iiiiiil{I pr�i
' ' , + � �s A i� ±, � tip; It �♦0�- r r " .�•f to
"` ete i �,, r `�i � ., ,` ® ♦ � , � +, , t SQNEST. =
ouw ✓ � '� `+ . � � 1 , - 1/, - � ' R ESIDEN1 cr,
tw o ,, r
` ,�r ♦ O, �`7 a ' ;� *�;y�� /,O` LINIT TYPE
p�
�4 7 , -" ii! � . ,7 I ri / OM
{ ,. ....0 � � . . ,%.„. ' �►,l .. t � / r r woo UMPUT aw Dupla CI, R.. •
�. p��� � Itp • / _ , / . t,L CLOAI )S' til rUBI I( TOTAL A7 .-,1 S�iI I�1. 4 ti fl // 0
VG '" . .. 1 fo o
I, l �!%� c�k�[ u`C31 NOVA �O• o
, � N
o f/
� 1. # ��. 2 Spaces Per Unit (Garage Parking) = 848 Spaces w g o ct. . / Additional Parking Spaces _ 325 Spaces : 1173 Total. Spaces N rp
0 0b
Parking Density - 2.88 Spaces per Unit o g
DOVER, KOHL & PARTNERS
to w n p l a n n i n g
Memorandum
To: Randy Stevenson
City of Winter Springs
Cc: Victor Dover
From: James Dougherty
Date: 21 November, 2008
Subject: Review of Calusa Cay 11/04/08 Conceptual Plans
Comments:
Regarding the proper orientation of the fronts and backs of buildings and lots:
In the creation of walkable places like the Winter Springs Town Center, the orientation of
buildings in relation to public spaces is of critical importance. All lots and buildings should have
fronts and backs relationships in which the fronts, or presentation faces of lots and buildings face
toward public spaces such as streets, parks and squares. The back sides of buildings and lots,
which contain parking and service access, should be located mid -block and thus are concealed
from view from public spaces. The sides of buildings and lots are free either to face public spaces
or to be concealed mid- block. This organization of fronts and backs is absolutely essential to the
creation of valuable addresses in the Winter Springs Town Center.
This fundamental urban design concept of proper orientation of fronts and backs is embedded in
the following applicable portions of the Winter Springs Town Center District Ordinance:
Section V. General Provisions, B. Alleys
"Alleys are required in the town center to minimize curb cuts and to provide access to parking
and service areas behind buildings. Alley requirements may be waived by the DRC for access
to detached single family residential lots greater than 55' in width in situations in which proper
streetfront orientation, pedestrian circulation, and parking can still be accomplished."
Section V. General Provisions, J. Parking,
5. Access to Off-Street Parking
"Alleys shall be the primary source of access 4— Alley
to off - street parking."
"Garage door(s) shall be positioned no closer to •
•
streets, squares or parks than 20 feet behind the �; •
principal plane of the building frontage. N
Garage doors facing streets, squares or parks .,i
shall not exceed 10 feet in width. Where space ;
permits, garage doors shall face the side or the Property•'• - • • - • - - • • - • . - • •
rear, not the front." The Code diagram to the Front Side of Buildings
right illustrates the typical configuration for
44- residential lots. Frontage Street
Plans, images and other items produced by Dover, Kohl & Partners are for purposes of illustration only and do not represent a guarantee of any kind. These items are
instruments of service which remain the property of Dover, Kohl Partners and may not be duplicated without permission. Dover, Kohl & Partners shall not have control
over and shall not be responsible for construction means, procedures, safety precautions, or legal disclosures in the implementation of the project, or for errors or
omissions by future consultants, developers, contractors, or government.
Section VI. Squares Parks and Street Types
The intended organization of the Winter Springs Town Center into a pattern of blocks and streets is
clearly demonstrated in the "In Our Generation Illustrative Buildout Drawing ". This drawing
shows blocks ringed by buildings so that the fronts of the buildings face public spaces and the
backs of buildings are concealed from view in mid -block locations.
Regarding the 4 November 2008 Conceptual Plan for Calusa Cay:
The Conceptual Plan for Calusa Cay contains some substantial problems with the fronts and
backs orientations of buildings and lots. Please see the annotated plan below:
1. The Cottage Lots are the most problematic. They are sited in a way that exposes both the front
and the back of the lots to direct view from public spaces. They are additionally not code -
compliant in that they are narrower than the minimum lot width permitted to be front - loaded. The
fronts of the lots face the street, but the front - loaded unit types with prominent garages that are
proposed will result in a streetscape dominated by driveway curb -cuts and views of garage doors.
The backs or private sides of the units are exposed to public view from across the ponds which
will result in a damaged sense of place for these public spaces. The ponds should be treated as
signature public spaces and faced with the presentation sides of buildings instead of backs.
2. The northernmost Paired Villa Lots have a fronts and backs conflict similar to that of the
Cottage Lots. They are correctly configured with rear - loaded parking, but the back alley side of
the units is unfortunately exposed to view from public spaces across pond 1.
3. The Estate Lots on the east side of the plan have front - loaded parking which is a less effective
configuration for achieving a high level of walkability. These lots do, however appear to meet the
minimum width required for front - loaded lots in the Town Center. The garage doors should be
verified to be a minimum of 20 feet behind the principal plane of the building as required by the
Town Center District Code.
4. Additionally regarding the Estate Lots, the Winter Springs Town Center "In Our Generation
Illustrative Buildout Drawing" shows a higher degree of access to the Cross Seminole Trail and
Lake Jessup on the eastern edge of this parcel. Incorporating this increased access into the plan
should be explored.
2 ":~
t oo ; ` r r ,
1
_ i ' - i,..i.e- \c ' ) . ,
K VA
Y 3
DOVER, KOHL & PARTNERS
to w n p l a n n i n g
Memorandum
To: Randy Stevenson, John Baker
City of Winter Springs
Cc: Victor Dover
From: James Dougherty
Date: February 1, 2008
Subject: Critique of Centerline Homes plan; and
sketches of plan modification suggestions
The Centerline Homes sketch master plan sent for our review has several issues in
need of resolution. The primary issues at odds with the walkable character desired
for the Town Center are: units with front -back conflicts, and units with front - loaded
automobile access.
Regarding front -back relationship conflicts:
Buildings (with very few exceptions) have front sides and back sides.
In walkable, pedestrian friendly urbanism the fronts, or presentation
faces of the buildings, should face the public realm. The backs of
buildings, which are the private or service sides of the buildings,
should be screened from view mid - block. When this basic pattern of
exposed fronts and concealed backs is disrupted, walkable, pedestrian
friendly character (and frequently real estate value) is diminished.
The grammar of fronts and backs in the proposed plan is problematic
in a number of locations (please refer to the diagram below). The
lakes featured in the plan, treated as public spaces, should be faced by
the fronts of buildings. The lakes are currently faced with the backs of
buildings in several locations. The buildings should front the lakes
either across a public street, or across a public pedestrian path.
Regarding front - loaded automobile access:
Streets lined with driveway curb cuts and garage doors are a
ubiquitous element of auto - oriented sub - urbanism. The frequent curb
cuts can be disruptive to pedestrian continuity and garages on the
fronts of the units reduce natural surveillance through `eyes on the
street'.
Critique of Centerline Homes plan; and
sketches of plan modification suggestions
February 1, 2008
Page 2 of 6
Generally, within walkable pedestrian- friendly urbanism, parking
occurs to the rear of the buildings in mid -block locations. This mid -
block parking is usually in the form of on -lot parking accessed via
alley, or in the form of mid -block parking lots. (Additional parking is
usually accommodated with parallel on -street parking).
Front - loaded units on the proposed plan are indicated on the diagram
below. At the very least, the garage doors on these units should be
pushed back behind the front plane of the building (the building wall at
the back of the porch) a minimum of 20 feet. This will reduce the
visibility of garage doors when looking down the street. Ideally the
plan should be reconfigured to minimize product with front - loaded
garages.
.
, k
r
, A i t IP- -----# -44
.4* � . LAO
��
f ' lots with problematic urban configuration
; fronts -backs conflicts
�. front - loaded garages
il
f lots with correct urban configuration
te r. ' rear- loaded parking and
correct front / back relationship
For an example of a project that uses its lakes as civic amenities, and
fronts the lakes with units, please refer to the plans and images below
of I'On — a TND located in Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina. The
continuous public access around the lakes adds value - not only to the
units immediately abutting the lakes, but to all the residences in the
project.
Critietces que o line d
skhf plan of Center modificati on suggesti an ons
February 1, 2008
Page 3 of 6
-Z 4-1'' , [ z a. er
9 '
i ' ._ 1 a s ' y sj e ' J "
'44 -,,, ;: ; l '4 1 ', x saxs 1 r a s ' ,4 ., 4 ''''.., Zti . . ,P,A.g.
`� a 4. 14 € - a ".
BP S,11. * . 7 t a ., . ,
i
" i : i f ' c i -,P.44 g Rif F ° T 'p5,
^d a 7r.� „ m i ' a _ 'q,. ' , 4
17 i
I � ! � . � `4 mF i` " sf
r *f = y ¢ f l • r S t
a v4-4:1';', 4
M����Y,F,.,, 99,,�� qq sTfr
'�i4 ` .;: 't- 2 , v. -Ra ,.,s37...." F`Y�' � �L ° 7 ...
Plan of the lakes i n l'On.
et,-,' , E a f
g , ( >:. ;. 3 ^ - +■gd s
fi f
m
r aL .
G0,xtilc
Aerial photo of the lakes in I'On.
I
Critique line es plan; and
sketches of plof anCenter modification Hom suggestions
February 1, 2008
Page 4 of 6
u 4 :.
I
i
141 lap .
ssa •w
y '
Ii l
1 ?
View of units fronting one of the canals connecting the lakes in I'On.
' N \i '' ,
1 wiss\**\
Er a
,gyp _ `y E »i: A _
Y f
3 G y ,',.„,:;,':154:::,•,„;,-4,11', r
r�
fi
t %fi G 3 „� '
5 . y x -,'"'„f.",:,,,, ,<.
tqr 4444444 ili )1 '' ' ' "
4 +C
i
View of units fronting one of the lakes across a pedestrian path.
Critique of Centerline Homes plan; and
sketches of plan modification suggestions
February 1, 2008
Page 5 of 6
6; �.: .
....yam .. 7,! fn
'S !R
of ' `.. A '-„,..". 4,.., , , 0 , . .t -„40 # t ,
'r., i.„/ „..4,
- ,tvtt ...„. - - 4 % , % .
View of units fronting the lake across a narrow street.
A ° ,l -
e
y°
r , - 1 1 ms`
✓,` ' . — ; v �,�
' *Wilt
I
te a
r
View of units fronting the lake across a pedestrian path.
Critique of Centerline Homes plan; and
sketches of plan modification suggestions
February 1, 2008
Page6of6 rl r TI ( . .
1 M [ 4
' r L t
1 1 el /. 1 ,
This is a quick sketch demonstrating how, with repositioning some of
the units on the site, it is possible to eliminate front -back conflicts and
reduce front - loaded product.
r
. f -r
1
s
Qa iw p. Y , ,.
N. l , a.
r, , e.
This quick sketch shows elimination of front -back conflicts as well as
replacement of front - loaded product with rear- loaded product. (Both
of these sketch configurations are conceptual and would of course
require adjustment regarding topography, and other site factors).
DOVER, KOHL & PARTNERS
t o w n p l a n n i n g
Memorandum
To: Randy Stevenson, John Baker
City of Winter Springs
Cc: Victor Dover
From: James Dougherty
Date: 13 July, 2006
Subject: Sonesta Pointe
Regarding the Site Plan
The site Plan has a problematic spot where the end of a street is aligned with the end of an alley.
Please refer to the plan below. This confusion between the street network (faced by the fronts of
buildings) and the alley network (faced by the backs of buildings with their garage doors) will
negatively impact the quality of the urban experience in this portion of the project. A relatively subtle
revision in this area of the plan can correct this so that the end of the street aligns with the end of
another street rather than an alley.
4. Or C041014104
,..�e,�..., , 41 / `,O \i \ •, `4 th ' ' :' �\IV s ,• � eL (P4
wow !f :'SN ,��se � •"* f�., 'Z
/ @, "4 \ilk/1\ \ . �, s ,0 ! r ; '.r•\0
404 lir
010•01 4 ' 4 P ./. al .' \ 41 ' A \ \ .' 07 1 - 41' Sti
444 444 i ' l, —..-y s\40 0 , * .. -\\•;:,„ik to, ,, 0' ow
�� s acv
@ :Y" ,
„rte ��, ....
Regarding Architecture
The architecture of the residential buildings as well as the clubhouse and other civic structures, as
submitted for review, so far is appearing quite compelling. The materials and proportions of the
facades as well as the details and the variety of porch configurations look like they will add quite
favorably to the character of the Town Center.
Plans, images and other items produced by Dover, Kohl & Partners are for purposes of illustration only and do not represent a guarantee of any kind. These items are
instruments of service which remain the property of Dover, Kohl Partners and may not be duplicated without permission. Dover, Kohl & Partners shall not have control
over and shall not be responsible for construction means, procedures, safety precautions, or legal disclosures in the implementation of the project, or for errors or
omissions by future consultants, developers, contractors, or government.
The color selections provided appear fine in the color copy sent for review. Review of the original
paint and materials swatches should, however, be done for a more reliable evaluation of the color
choices.
Regarding the Mix of Building Types
We still feel that the mix of building types shown in the plan is rather homogenous. The project
would be improved with greater variety, perhaps including buildings of varying heights and varying
types such as rowhouses or courtyard apartments. This could perhaps be achieved with careful
phasing of the project, so that re- evaluation of the building type mix in later phases could be made
by the applicant at a later date.
ATTACHMENT B
14 East Washington • Suite 500 • Orlando. Florida 32801
- War WADLEY
Office: 407.843.9863 • Fax: 407.367.2106
HANSON
1111I LLC Planning • Urban Design • Landscape Architecture
May 25, 2010
Mr. Randy Stevenson, ASLA, AICP
City of Winter Springs
1126 East State Road 434
Winter Springs, FL 32708 -2799
Re: Sonesta Pointe — Staff Review Comments and Responses (Rev. 4/30/10 site plan)
WS Project #201000904 / WH Project #090816 -LA
Dear Mr. Stevenson:
Below are the responses to the comments received at the May 18, 2010 DRC meeting regarding the
review of the Sonesta Pointe Concept Plan. I have listed your comments in bold and our response
directly underneath.
Also included within this submittal are the follow items as requested:
• One copy of Concept Plan (24 "x36 ")
• Twenty (20) copies of Concept Plan (11 "x 17 ")
Florine Walters of our office will email a pdf of this concept plan to Michele Kelly.
Staff Comments:
BUILDING OFFICIAL - DAVID ALAMINA
Phone: 407 - 327 -5972 E -mail: dalamina @winterspringsfl.org
CBO REVIEWED THE CONCEPTUAL PAGE AND HAS THE FOLLOWING COMMENT:
1. Please check the building count as a group number stipulated thirteen (13) units and
the plan shows twelve (12) units. Another group stipulates six (6) units and the plan shows five
(5) units.
Building count has been checked and revised.
2) CITY ENGINEER - BRIAN FIELDS
Phone: 407 - 327 -7597 E -mail: bfields @winterspringsfl.org
1. At the pond located east of the estate homes, please keep in mind that the pond needs to
have stabilized vehicular access to it from the street, and there must be a 10 -foot wide
maintenance berm around the pond.
Agree. A tract has been added to provide access to the pond.
Page 1 of 8
2. For Road B, remove the single parallel parking spaces on both sides between Passes 6
and 7. Add parallel parking spaces along the frontage of the 9 and 13 unit buildings.
Agree. This has been done.
3. If the alleys will be 16 -feet in width as shown in the sketch, they can be two -way
(recommended).
Agree.
4. Consider providing a sidewalk connecting the sidewalk in Michael Blake Boulevard
with the sidewalk in Road B, running along the south end of the property near the south end of
Pass 5. This is the shortest path to the Cross - Seminole Trail and other attractions to the south.
This will be addressed in Final Engineering.
5. Consider making Roads A and B Neighborhood Lanes per the Town Center Code.
Neighborhood Lanes allow parking on both sides but do not have designated parking spaces.
This was considered; however, the decision was made by the design team to leave these as
`neighborhood streets'.
6. In the alignment for Road A, there are several locations that appear to have horizontal
break points that should have more curvature. These are near Passes 7, 9, and 10.
Agree. These will be revised in Final Engineering.
7. Provide handicapped parking for the pool/clubhouse area along the closest accessible
route to the entrance per the Florida Building Code.
Agree. This will be shown on Final Engineering plans.
8. In the final engineering phase, please evaluate the need for the stop signs shown on
Road B at the approaches to Roads E and F. These do not appear that they would be
warranted, and the spacing between Roads E and F create an awkward 4 -way stop.
If there are any questions, please contact Brian Fields at 407 - 327 -7597 or by e-mail at
bfields @ winterspringsfl.org.
Agree.
Page 2 of 8
SENIOR PLANNER - JOHN BAKER
Phone: 407 - 327 -5966 E -mail: jbaker @winterspringsfl.org
CONCEPT SUBDIVISION
1. Front -back issue is an enormous unresolved key issue that does not capitalize on the
open spaces and must be resolved to have an acceptable plan. The attached 11/21/08 memo
from Dover Kohl (which addressed a similarly non - compliant plan) explains the issue well.
Sec. 20 -324 (2) states that the alley requirement may be waived by the DRC for access to
detached SFR lots greater than 55' in situations where proper street -front orientation,
pedestrian circulation, and parking can still be accomplished. A design with driveways
emptying onto the roadway instead of an alley should incorporate shared driveways to
minimize the area of concrete and cars in front and side yards — minimize their domination of
the interaction between the street and the residential element.
Further, the plan literally turns its back on the trail, largely as if it were a liability, instead of
an asset. This decreases the safety for trail users. Please explore the provision of additional
trail access points between the large "estate" lots. The ponds need to be either important
public spaces in the front or else completely in the back of house.
A waiver is being requested to address the "front - back" issue. A landscape screen, as noted on the
concept plan, will be installed to mitigate this condition.
A waiver will be requested for 50' lots to have driveways in the front of lots. Garages will be set
back 25 feet from the edge of the right -of -way to avoid the appearance of an automobile /garage-
dominated streetscape.
The trail is considered an asset. The larger single family lots abut the trail and will not decrease the
safety for trail users. There are literally miles of trail without homes fronting the trail. If anything,
the placement of the larger lots on the trail will increase the feeling of safety for users on the trail.
This concept plans provides an improvement over previous plans where large retaining walls raised
the site above the trail. By having deeper single family lots along the trail, the lots can be graded
down to eliminate the retaining walls, which was a physical and visual barrier between the trail and
the project.
Three access points to the trail, along the estate lots, have been shown on the concept plan.
This is a difficult site to design and engineer to meet all the City's requirements plus market
considerations. The ponds are located in a position that strikes a balance. They are still an important
feature of the plan and will serve as positive features for the neighborhood.
2. The blocks which incorporate the ponds also are not pedestrian sized blocks and the lots
abutting the trail and one -acre pond form a block do not appear to constitute a traditional
block (FLU Policies 2.2.1 & 5.2.5). Ideally, residential blocks are no more than 220' x 600' in
size. Please identify the different approximate block circumferences.
A waiver will be requested for the block sizes shown on the plan.
Page 3 of 8
3. Identify special relationship of the various buildings to the street (provide cross
sections, as shown in the Town Center Code with, at a minimum, horizontal dimensions).
See the street cross - sections and plan views on Sheets 2 of 3 and 3 of 3 for relationship of buildings
to streets.
4. Unless accessory dwelling units are incorporated into the plan, Sonesta Point falls short
of the 7 d.uJacre goal density(FLU Policy 2.2.6 & 5.1.1) - essential for Town Center (TC)
critical mass necessary to support a vibrant and diverse commercial area as well as multi -
modal transportation. There are opportunities for accessory units either on the plan layout or
as part of the final architectural plans.
Meritage Homes will consider adding accessory units, as recommended, during the final design of
architectural plans.
5. Road "A" is not designed as a neighborhood street, as depicted in the TC master plan.
Road `B" appears to be some hybrid. Explain how these deviations create a better Traditional
Neighborhood Development (TND) product. If roads "C," "D, " "G," & "H" do not meet the
Neighborhood lane specs, please explain.
Road A is designed as a hybrid because it has front -load units (single family estate lots) on one side
of the street and on -street parking on the opposite side. The street layout provides for a mix of
residential units to meet a variety of needs. The resulting plan is an improvement over the original
plan that was all townhomes and the previously- approved plan that had a larger number of
townhomes.
Roads "C', "D ", G" and "H" meet neighborhood lane specs.
6. Sidewalks must be provided on each side of all roadways (not alleys), consistent with the
comp plan and TC code. It is unclear in the concept subdivision whether or not this is
proposed. Sidewalks need to be provided along each side of the lake in the 2.0 acre lake and
park combo.
Sidewalks will be provided as noted. They will show up clearer on Final Engineering Plans.
7. Additional/adequate pedestrian trail access to the trail needs to be provided. These
need to be inviting and located where demand will be (such as across the road from the club-
house site). This could be in conjunction with a more realistic and functional mechanical
access to the 1 acre pond (homeowners would probably not like big machinery going thru their
side yards several times a month). The master plan in the TC Code depicts a pond in this area
and a small park.
Additional access points have been shown. A tract will be dedicated rather than an access easement
between homes.
8. Identify what the uncolored areas are at the ends of the blocks and explain how they
will be used to create "place" and meet TC requirements.
This has been done.
Page 4 of 8
9. A properly planned TND subdivision provides a focal point at each carefully located
terminating vista (Seaside provides an excellent example, where each terminating vista has
been carefully considered and appropriately addressed). Please demonstrate how the terminat-
ing vistas have been accommodated with significant architecture or other prominent elements.
I appreciate the reference to Seaside; however, this is a resort development on the Gulf Coast. The
central park and clubhouse will provide major and dramatic vistas. Walkways between buildings
leading to the two ponds will also provide dramatic vistas.
10. FLU Policy 5.2.6 and Transp. Policy 1.6.2 address transit stops (with shelters, bike
racks, benches) and well connected pedestrian circulation systems, immediate shade along
streets, 6' min. sidewalk width in residential areas, and streetscape design as set forth in the TC
Code.
So noted.
BUILDING ELEVATIONS
It is our understanding that these comments are preliminary and do not need to be addressed at this
time. We appreciate these early comments and look forward to working closely with Staff during the
development of the architectural plans.
1. Sec. 20 -324 (2) states that the alley requirement may be waived by the DRC for access
to detached SFR lots greater than 55'in situations where proper street -front orientation,
pedestrian circulation, and parking can still be accomplished.
2. Sec. 20 -324 (10) (e) states that garage doors shall be positioned no closer than 20 feet
behind the principal plane of the building frontage (not just the front of the porch). Garage
doors facing streets, squares or parks shall not exceed 10' in width. Where space permits,
garage doors shall face the side or the rear, not the front. The front - facing garage doors need
to be designed to be separated by an architectural column such that no individual door is more
than ten (10') feet wide.
3. The overly prominent garage on the proposed estate home designs do not allow the
front of the house to reflect the bilateral symmetry of the human face and, therefore, looks
awkward. Even the prettiest garage disrupts the streetscape with a huge slab of concrete and,
when driveway access is to the front, the closer the garage, the more likely the houses will be
displaying "their" cars into the front yard; where alleys are appropriately waived per code, the
garage should be tucked to the rear, to minimize its presence to the street and also minimize its
detraction from interface of the house with the street. There appears to be a lack of unity -
unity in a building can be accomplished by the placement of elements and materials in a
cohesive whole. Scale and proportion play an important role here. In many older houses,
invisible diagonal lines regulate the proportions of doors and windows. The mind is
subconsciously disturbed when it encounters a lack of visual agreement. The bungalows and 6-
unit proposals fair much better with the diagonal line test than the proposed estate
homes,where 1 /z of the first floor frontage is consumed by garage.
4. Sec. 20 -327 strongly recommends exposed rafter ends or tabs at overhangs.
Page 5 of 8
SENIOR PLANNER - ELOISE SAHLSTROM
Phone: 407 - 327 -5967 E -mail: esahlstrom @winterspringsfl.org
1. The street -to- building relationship is the number one defining characteristic of the
Town Center Code, and as a result the entire Code is structured to support this relationship
through what is described as the "hierarchy" of squares, parks and streets. This priority of
streetscape and design trumps all other considerations. The submitted concept defies this
relationship where estate homes front retention ponds surrounded by alleys and the rear of
bungalow and townhouse units, thereby imposing a tension in the plan from what is permitted
under the Code.
The retention ponds, which initially were illustrated as a signature public amenity for the
community with pedestrian walks and features, have been stripped back to serving only as a
required utility- Yet, many of the estate lots continue to face onto these utility areas as a
primary space.
Other issues identified within these comments while important, remain subordinate to this
primary issue.
See response to "Concept Subdivision" - Item 1 on pages 2 and 3.
2. The Estate Lots on the east side of the plan do not meet the minimum requirements for
front - loaded lots as identified in the Code, and therefore do not qualify for a waiver from the
alley requirement. It appears however, that the depth of these lots would be ideal for
supporting rear loading from an alley, allowing an increase in unit count (as required under
the Comprehensive Plan) and supporting the inclusion of accessory dwelling units over garages
(as encouraged by the Comprehensive Plan).
The reason for the deeper lots is to allow grading the rear of the lots to eliminate the extensive
retaining walls that form a barrier between the trail and the project and are very expensive to
construct. If the alley was introduced to the rear of the lots, the retaining walls would be necessary.
The change in grade would not allow for an alley at a lower elevation in the rear of the lots without
the retaining walls to raise the grade.
3. The unit type diversity (townhomes, bungalows, and estate lots) included in this concept
is an improvement over the initial plan approved by the City in 2004, which included only
townhomes. However, the mix should be manipulated in the layout to maximize a greater yield
of lots. Bungalow units could be located at corners, flanking the townhomes to enable land use
efficiency and a greater variety along the streetscape.
A change has been made to the concept plan. Bungalows have been added along Tuskawilla Road to
replace the townhomes. This will create a streetscape along Tuskawilla Road that will reflect a
greater diversity in the overall town center. Bungalows replace the estate lots along the southern
boundary of the concept plan. This permits an alley in the rear which can also be used as an
easement for the force main that will extend from the Lift Station to Michael Blake Boulevard.
Page 6 of 8
4. Park and Squares to be located on this property are defined in the Town Center Code.
The Code [see Sec. 20 -325 (c) Squares, Parks and Streets Map and Sec. 20 -325 (c) (4) & Sec. 20-
325 (c) (6)] illustrates and describes two "neighborhood squares" and a "lake trail park ",
which are further defined within the June 26, 2000 Schrimsher Developer's Agreement (DA).
The DA specifically describes the minimum acreage and the location of these public facilities,
but also allows some flexibility (in the location), as a special exception. The criteria for the
granting of the special exception requires that the substituted facility be of equal or better
value and design than required under the Code. The submitted concept plan however, is
lacking in usable public park amenities and acreage and has not provided proper transition
and public access to the trail as ascribed to the "lake trail park" in the Code. The following
excerpt from the DA describes the Lake Trail Park location and size:
The Lake Trail Park is described as a minimum of 0.85 acres with a minimum of three
hundred (300) feet of road frontage on its western boundary and contiguous to a retention
pond on its northern boundary and the unpaved portion of the Cross Seminole Trail on its
eastern boundary.
Dover Kohl (Town Center consultant) has stated that "the Squares, Parks and Streets Map in
the Town Center District Code was the result of a long interactive design process involving
public input and the participation of property owners, public officials and planners and
represents a consensus achieved among these groups for how the Town Center should be
configured, and should only be substantially modified when absolutely necessary."
The concept plan shows a 2.0 -acre central park with lake that will have sidewalks for public access
and recreation. A tract is shown just east of the park that will provide a very short direct pedestrian
access to the trail. Three trail access points are shown along the eastern boundary of the project: one
on the north at Tuskawilla Road; one across from the park as described above; and a third at the
southern end of the project. The proposed concept plan is a very walkable, pedestrian- friendly
environment. In addition to the recreation amenities within the project, there are the following
amenities: (i) easy access to the Cross Seminole Trail, a regional facility; (ii) Wetland Park, a city
park, is immediately across Michael Blake Boulevard along the western property boundary; and (iii)
the project is a short distance from the commercial district of the Town Center. These are significant
diverse recreational and cultural amenities that will make Sonesta Pointe a very liveable
neighborhood.
It should be pointed out that the Dover Kohl conceptual master plan contained in the City's code
lacks a proper allocation of land for stormwater management. Any real and meaningful plan must be
designed to overcome this deficiency in the Dover Kohl plan. I understand the intent of an
illustrative plan as prepared by Dover Kohl, but it is not a `blueprint' with no allowable deviations.
The proposed concept plan incorporates modifications that are `absolutely necessary' to have a
marketable plan that also responds to the Town Center code.
5. Street Types need to be identified on the plan. An "edge drive" type street [Sec. 20 -325
(c) (11)] is needed along the south property line to connect the plan together and as illustrated
in the Town Center Master Plan and the Squares, Parks and Streets Map.
The street types are presented in a table on the concept plan. The street types and confiration have
been reviewed multiple times with Planning and Engineering staff.
Page 7 of 8
6. Street Tree Planting. The plan needs to address the location of street trees as required
by the Code. Areas need to be large enough and properly located during the concept planning
stage so that trees are an integral part of the plan.
Street trees have been contemplated in the design of the concept plan. A landscape plan will be
provided with Final Engineering that meets code.
7. The following Comprehensive Plan policies and their implications to the design must be
considered as the concept plan is finalized:
Future Land Use Element
Policy 2.2.1: Neo- Traditional Characteristics.
Policy 2.2.6: Residential Density.
Policy 2.2.7: Accessory Dwelling Units.
Policy 5.2.5: Block Size and Interconnectivity.
Policy 5.2.6: Pedestrian- Friendly Site Design
Housing Element
Policy 1.1.15: Urban Character.
Policy 1.3.9: Workforce Housing.
Policy 2.2.8: Eyes on the Street.
Transportation Element
Policy 1.4.7: Right of Way Dedication.
These policies were considered during the development of the concept plan. The proposed
deviations are the minimum necessary to make the plan work.
With respect to right -of -way dedication, Meritage Homes is completing the `4 -lot plat' begun by
Engle Homes. This plat will dedicate Michael Blake Boulevard right -of -way, plus the dedication of
Wetland Park, which was a Schrimsher obligation.
8. Buffer to St Johns Landing- The DA requires a buffer not less than fifty 50 feet in width
along the northern boundary of the Schrimsher Property adjacent to the St John s Landing
Subdivision. This remains a requirement until such time as a change to the DA language is
approved.
The Developers Agreement will be amended to eliminate this buffer. It is no longer required because
the townhomes abutting St. Johns Landing have been replaced by single family detached residences.
Thank you for the opportunity of responding to Staff review comments. We look forward to working
with you for the successful completion of this important project in the Winter Springs Town Center.
Please don't hesitate to contact me at 407.467.0640 if you have any questions.
Sincerely, /l
4 7, ,
Michael D. Wadley, AICP
P:\PROJECT FOLDERS \090816-LA - Meritage Homes Calusa Cay\Correspondence \City of WS response to staff comments.doc
cc: Jeff Porter, Meritage Homes (3)
Dick Jerman, Sunterra Communities
Page 8 of 8
ATTACHMENT C
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
Section 163.3194, Florida Statutes, sets forth the legal status of the comprehensive plan. Subsection
163.3194 (1) (a), Florida Statutes, requires that "After a comprehensive plan, or element or portion
thereof, has been adopted in conformity with this act, all development undertaken by, and all actions
taken in regard to development orders by, governmental agencies in regard to land covered by such
plan or element shall be consistent with such plan or element as adopted." There are no variances or
waivers from the comprehensive plan. The following goals, objectives, and policies from the Winter
Springs Comprehensive Plan are particularly pertinent to the present iteration of this development:
Future Land Use Element
Policy 1.4.2: Higher Density Infill. Encourage compatible infill and higher density and intensity
development within the Town Center and the U.S. 17 -92 CRA Corridor. Minimize adverse impacts to
adjacent established residential neighborhoods through site layout, orientation of buildings, and a
transition of densities. (Cross Reference: See Housing Element, Policy 1.1.8)
Goal 2 Town Center. The City seeks to create a Town Center based upon traditional design standards for
development that will become the identifying focus of the City's downtown and contribute to an increased
and diversified tax base for the City. The primary purpose of the Town Center shall be to create an
economically successful, vibrant, aesthetic, compact, multimodal, diverse, mixed use (including horizontal
and vertical integration of uses) neo- traditional urban environment, designed on a pedestrian scale and
with a pedestrian orientation. The Town Center is to be a place where people can reside in a mix of
single and multiple family dwellings, work, gather to shop, relax, recreate, be entertained, attend
community events, and enjoy the natural beauty of lands located in the Town Center. The Town Center
should be created through public and private investment and development.
Policy 2.1.3: Promote and Protect. Maintain a leadership position to protect the economic and planning
integrity of the Town Center and promote public and private investment and growth therein.
Policy 2.1.4: Future Roads and Traffic Patterns. Adopt appropriate transportation maps to identify future
roads and traffic patterns related to the Town Center that assure best routes through land while .
attempting to maximize development potential and opportunities consistent with the Town Center Goal.
Determine the final location of future Town Center roads during the development process.
Objective 2.2 Neo- traditional. Promote and enhance the development of the Town Center by allowing a
mixed use higher density /intensity neo- traditional urban pattern.
Policy 2.2.1: Neo- Traditional Characteristics. Encourage a mixed use higher density /intensity neo -
traditional Town Center, utilizing, to the extent practical, the fundamentals and urban design concepts in
the Town Center Master Plan:
• Urban and high density
• Walkable community
• Predictability in design /flexibility in land uses.
• Visibly different section of S.R. 434
• Important sites for special public places
• "Green network" of parks and preserved open spaces
• Connected network of streets and blocks
• Special public spaces of defined character
• Special sites for civic buildings
• Pedestrian sized blocks
Nongated developments
Policy 2.2.6: Residential Density. Support the desired commercial activity and urban character desired for
the Town Center by encouraging high density residential development consistent with the Town Center
Goal up to thirty -six (36) units per gross acre and by seeking a minimum average residential density of
seven (7) units per acre, unless the type of unit would warrant a lesser density while still meeting the intent
of the Town Center Code.
Policy 2.2.7: Accessory Dwelling Units. Encourage developers of single family detached units in the Town
Center, to include residential units with accessory dwelling units (such as garage apartments). (Cross
Reference: See Housing Element, Policy 1.3.9)
Objective 2.3 Economic Development. Plan and promote sufficient economic growth and development that
provides for an appropriate balance of high - quality land uses, development and activities that will
provide a sound financial future for the City.
Policy 2.3.3: Optimization of Tax Base. Ensure compatible land uses and development projects within the
Town Center that optimally increase and diversify the City's tax base and economic well- being, while
complementing and protecting established surrounding neighborhoods.
Policy 2.3.4: Fiscal Impacts of Development. Ensure that City policies, regulations, and decision making
processes not only consider Town Center design planning impacts, but also consider whether proposed new
development will have a positive and acceptable economic impact on the City. In furtherance of this
policy, the City Commission may require, as a condition of considering the approval or denial of a
development project. that developers provide a written economic fiscal impact report, prepared by a duly
qualified expert that details the associated fiscal impacts of any proposed new development project on
the City and the School District.
Policy 2.3.6: High Quality Development. Ensure high - quality building and development that enhances the
image and economic well -being of the City and the Town Center.
GOAL 5: Urban core.Central Business District. The City shall create an Urban Central Business District
IUCBD) in order to promote high intensity, high density development in its urban core.
Policy 5.1.1: Purpose of Urban Central Business District. Establish the UCBD to:
• Plan appropriate and balanced land uses on a scale and at an intensity, consistent with the
availability of public facilities and services;
• Facilitate mixed use development;
• Encourage mass transit;
• Reduce the need for automobile travel;
• Encourage quality development; and
Give definition to the urban form through a vertical and horizontal mix of uses rather than
strip -type development.
Policy 5.1.2: Characteristics of Urban Central Business District. Establish the UCBD as a multi -use area
appropriate for intensive growth and having the following characteristics:
• Compact in design;
• Flexible, versatile building design that will outlast initial uses and create Tong -term value;
• High densities and intensities;
• Proximate and accessible to major arterial roadways; and
• Adequate public facilities including roads, water, wastewater, solid waste disposal,
stormwater drainage, and recreation.
Policy 5.2.5: Block Size and Interconnectivity. Require developments to have an interconnected network of
walkable streets and pedestrian -sized blocks.
Policy 5.2.6: Pedestrian - Friendly Site Design. Promote pedestrian gathering and circulation by requiring all
of the following:
• Safe and convenient pedestrian connection to commercial shop fronts from rear parking
areas. Connection might be by public sidewalk or through plazas, courtyards, vias, or
corridors;
• Transit stops which are well connected to pedestrian circulation systems and include shelter
from the elements and sitting areas;
• Sidewalks that are a minimum of 12' wide along in front of commercial shop fronts and
are a minimum of 6' wide in all other areas;
• Provisions for immediate shade along streets by inclusion of larger caliper shade trees,
expanded awnings or colonnades for commercial shop fronts, and /or other means;
• Pedestrian lighting and subdued night lighting of display windows and building interiors
along street frontages;
• Room -sized areas of occupiable space (as defined in Florida Building Code, Chapter 2)
along street frontages in commercial shop fronts with entrances at the same grade as the
sidewalk; and
Streetscape design as set forth in the Town Center District Code.
Transportation Element
Policy 1.4.7: Require development in the Town Center to provide the necessary right -of -way dedications
for the proposed public street network.
Policy 1.6.2: Require residential development with greater than 200 units or commercial developments
over 50,000 square feet to incorporate a transit shelter, benches, and bicycle parking into their site plan,
if located along a transit route, or if not located along a transit route, to construct a transit shelter or
equivalent multimodal facility at a location to be determined by the City. Transit ridership to and from
such developments along a transit route shall be encouraged and further improved by including elements,
such as:
• Clearly delineated, well lit walkways from the building to the transit stop; and
Commercial buildings placed closer to the street with access and windows directed to the street. (Cross
Reference: See Future Land Use Element, Policy 5.2.4)
Housing Element
Policy 1.1.15: Support the desired commercial activity and urban character desired for the Town Center
by encouraging high density residential development up to thirty -six (36) units per acre, consistent with the
City's economic development goals and Town Center Master Plan. (Cross Reference: Future Land Use Element,
Policy 2.2.6)
Policy 2.2.8: Continue to require the implementation of the Town Center Code so that the concept of 'eyes
on the street' is maintained to ensure safe, pedestrian friendly streets.
° b 1 4. y t =l r •• ;, . if
�AC�ss
r
-- _
1 t ` ,:. r wAT1ON
LOCATION MAP ` _� �-- J $ , ,
�161 000 S.F.
` f ` \ i lct- -� 3.69 AC
r ♦ fin Fill\ ' / ' / v' � TESIPORARY
� :911 ` liI ' : -' \1I" % _ /. &15FAffiJT CONSTRUCTION
" \ 1/11111/1b/ i / • .
/ '''''' \ \ CA \ ?AV 02; ' Ir... 1111 ‘ VW 111113111 - 1111 11/111,7 i
\ \ a , , $ ‘ ..).., ..n..„____„.a■f„. -...: --..-__ _., ...`' /
r ' '° ;f — IV' i til Illititatilk, GRAPHIC SCALE
� _/ d \\ � .• ;� x �S� �' Q� ,� I 1 ' �¢Ch = 100 (f
, i . ti�P , [I� ---� I _ _ — _ tifl
l
•'
, 4:' ' J ,✓ ,,,,,,,/
CONSTRU
`,v ."1:.' _ r ./• •. EASEI�NT ,,�
/ O , I�'�. `,� , STATE AND
� ,� OR COUNTY
�► ° /' � � �� �� / A SPATE TRAIL IN Road Types
TRAIL R/W
l ' W Width
� ,° ° , �� Residential Units Parking Calculations Road Name Typ:orhoods:eet R/
VV
f, Lot Type Number Number
Spaces Per A 52'
?, \, \; , Lo Size Of Lots Lot Type Total
rpt�, \/ / / '� Unit Total
Neighborhood Street 60'
`+•t `N. i , y Estate 50' x 110' 60 Estate 60 4 240 B-southerly Neighborhood Lane 50'
��., / 0 Bungalow 32' x 75' 133 Bungalow 133 4 532 C Neighborhood Lane 50'
,._ Townhouse 22' x 75' 60 Townhomes 60 4 240 D Neighborhood Lane 50'
i 8 - 6 Unit Bldg - 48
3 - 4 Unit Bldg - 12 Off Street 213 E Modified Urban Blvd. 44'
4 t �. - - Parking
"'.... SIDEWALK TOTRAIL Total: 251 Lots Parking Off _ _ 21 F Modified Urban Blvd. 44'
Tuskawilla Rd.
S- ° G Neighborhood Lane 50'
Total: 1,246 Spaces
Total Excluding Tuskawilla Rd.: 1,225 Spaces H Neighborhood Lane 50'
Spaces Required: 2.5 per unit Neighborhood Alley Spaces Provided: 4 per unit PASSES g y 30' Easement
RECEIVED
Michael Blake Blvd. 48'
1 2C
NOTE: See detailed section on second sheet.
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
Pe - Chr;sN
(�
DATE: April 27, 2010 SHEET 1 OF 3
O f R; b n O i n t'7 Revised: May 12, 2010
Revised: May 24, 2010
---•••17.4L Revised Concept Plan t '` PROCTOR
e
Meriita Homes 1 4. 14 E. Washington Street Orlando, FL 32801 Suite 500
9 Phone: 407. 628 - 0640 FAX: 407. 367. 2106
NOTE: ALL LIMEROCK BASE SHALL HAVE LBR 100, MIN CaCO3 70%
AND BE COMPACTED TO 98% MIN DENSITY PER AASHTO T -180.
50' PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY
48' RIGHT -OF -WAY
APPLICABLE TO: _ 6.0' _ 6.0' k , 13.0' 13.0' I 6.0' 6.0 _
8.0' 10.0' 10.(L' 8.0' 6.0' 6. ROADS C, D, G, H & SIDEWALK LAND- DRIVE LANE DRIVE LANE LAND- SIDEWALK
LAND- DRIVE LANE DRIVE LANE DESIGNATED LAND- SIDEWALK SCAPE SCAPE
SCAPE PARALLEL SCAPE SOUTHERLY END OF STRIP 1_% ASPHALT STRIP
STRIP PARKING STRIP FIRST LIFT 1" S -III 1.5' CURB
GUTTER AND 2' VALLEY ODIFIED
ROAD .,B.. 1 .5' CURB
1.5' CU A
FINAL LIFT 34" 5 -11 AND GUTTER
(TYP) GUTTER (TYP) "F "CURB(1.5') AND GUTTER 2X TYP 2% TYP tr.......
------ -
_-, 9X TVP 2X TYP Y� 2X TYP lik‘ho
1 -3j" ASPHALT 8" UMEROCK BASE (LBR =100) (TYP)
L6" UMEROCK BASE (LBR -100) (TYP) FIRST LIFT 1" S -III 12" SUBGRADE (FBV -50) STABIUZED TO 98% AASHTO T -180
12" SUBGRADE (FB1-50) STABILIZED TO 98% AASHTO T -180 FINAL LIFT 45" S - III
MICHAEL BLAKE BLVD. (48' R/W)
NOT TO SCALE NEIGHBORHOOD LANE SECTION (50' R/W)
NOT TO SCALE
.. 60' OR 52' RIGHT -OF -WAY
APPLICABLE TO: 6.0' 6.0' 8.0' 10.0' _ _ 10.0 _ 8.O'• __ 6.0' 6.0' _ WIDTH AND LENGTH VARIES
S IDEWALK LAND- DESIGNATED DRIVE LANE DRIVE LANE DESIGNATED LAND- SIDEWALK
ROAD "A" AND B.. SCAPE PARALLEL PARALLEL SCAPE
STRIP PARKING 1 -34" ASPHALT PARKING STRIP SOD 9' VARIES 9' SOD,
EXCEPT THE 2'VALLEY FIRST LIFT 1" S -III LITTORAL LITTORAL
MODIFIE GUTTER FINAL LIFT 45" -III GUTTER ODIFIED 5.1 ZONE NORMAL W ATER EL. = A ZONE
SOUTHERLY END OF - 5: -
F"cuRe(1.5') (TyP) F C U RB (1. 5' )
ROAD "B., 2 TYP 2X 7YP 2R TYP �2% ,,r •. 1 . 5 ' • BREAKPOINT EL. = B 1.5'
........:.: y S� %////////� \ \ \ \ \ \\\ \4�� \ \� ~. ~a.. ? � POND BOTTOM = C � -
2'VALLEY SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR
8" UMEROCK BASE (LBR -100) (TYP) GUTTER LITTORAL ZONE SECTION
12" SUBGRADE (FBV =50) STABILIZED TO 98% AASHTO T -180 (TYP) AND PLANTINGS.
• FOR ROAD "A" PARALLEL STORM STAGE ELEVATIONS
1 PARKING ON THE ESTATE LOT SIDE OF THE STREET IS NOT APPLICABLE POND # A B C MEAN ANNUAL 10 YR 25 YR 100 YR
1 21.00 18.00 9.00 22.84 23.87 24.15 24.68
2 15.00 12.00 5.00 16.72 17.75 18.08 18.94
NEIGHBORHOOD STREET SECTION (60' OR 52' R/W)
NOT TO SCALE WET DETENTION POND SECTION
NOT TO SCALE
NOTE: ALL LIMEROCK BASE SHALL HAVE LBR 100, MIN CaCO3 70% NOTE: ALL LIMEROCK BASE SHALL HAVE LBR 100, MIN CaCO3 70%
AND BE COMPACTED TO 98% MIN DENSITY PER AASHTO T -180. AND BE COMPACTED TO 98% MIN DENSITY PER AASHTO T -180.
44' RIGHT -OF -WAY
30' INGRESS/EGRESS
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT
12.0' 12.0' : •' 6.0' 6.0' _ _ _ .0' _
SCAPE DESIGNATED LAND- SIDEWALK 7.0' - 8.0' R Cl' (1'
LAND- E TRAVEL LANE PRIVATE DRIVE TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE PRIVATE DRIVE
STRIP (ONE -WAY) PARALLEL STRIP OR LANDSCAPE (TWO-WAY) OR LANDSCAPE
1 -3i ASPH LT
1.5' CURB AND- FIRST LIFT 1 S -III 1 - ) (TWO -WAY)
� ASPHALT
GUTTER (TYP) FINAL LIFT " S -III FIRST LIFT 1" S -III
FINAL LIFT " S -III 1.0' RIBBON
1 2' VALLEY ODIFIED 1.0' RIBBON CURB AND
GUTTER (TYP "F "CURB(1.5') CURB AND' \ GUTTER (TYP)
2% TYP 2R TYP ,.:.:,. +::.•..:...R ».".." GUTTER (TIP)
„'..• i.1..... ��� ;�.:: ..::.. 2R TYP �� 2X Ti? kal
6' �\V�\\\\\\ \ \rwl I
6 ►�ti�
8" UMEROCK BASE (LBR -1) (TYP) IN 'OAD CROWN
8 UNFROCK BASE (LBR -100) (TYP)
12" SUBGRADE (FBV -SO) STABIUZED TO 98% AASHTO T -180 12" SUBGRADE (FBV -50) STABILIZED TO 98% AASHTO T -180
MODIFIED URBAN BLVD. SECTION (44' R/W) NEIGHBORHOOD ALLEY SECTION (30' EASEMENT)
NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE on l C� P o Date: May 24, 20 0 SHEET 2 OF 3
_...-7.-43._
Details
PROCTOR CROSS
MentageHomes 1 4 E. Washington bon Street 0 Orlando, FL 32801 Suite 500
367 - 2106
. .
Estate
50? ,
Townhome/Bungalow .....
(
. .
. . .
• . Nie.46,44toos r._._______: •
4 , 0t ,,,, . OM • .
( . .. •
, gm . it. • • • •• •
icr LIAM
1 0 :11 1 ftWii
1
15t1 ii.42-11)-
L4k1 0. 1
I
1,2
IZ
1 1 0'
311, i 1
at t------1
i... 19.AT vi it -4 : 0
e. or filte-, 7
4 . meet ro/S '
vtdti.
1:-...
'.fikc atArsav*-
ti). P•ot. 1- Garage
y'1'-if .•=u--t-r..-----\\4i2
, , eivrAt:L.17 ..P
--A-7
. . . . :
. • tor 1.11,4n . . - i — — —7 211
____,. • - . . -.
....„.__
• • 4-.WAy1',W.,* • . . . *
B
---- 1 CAt -1 %, Z C ZOAI 1
uilding ' I 31 111 Porch
– Setback
POlITIR
iztavv 4. zz. io
WAIL
4 I.
- Date: May 24, 2010 SHEET 3 OF 3
Typicals PROCTOR
MentageHomes*
•
1 or)6t8
. 14 E. Washington Street Orlando, FL 32801 Suite 500
Phone: 407. 628 - 0640 FAX: 407. 367 - 2106
1